Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @04:03AM
from the think-about-little-johnny dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "The technology is here. So-called 'smart guns' are being programmed to recognize a gun owner's identity and lock up if the weapon ends up in the wrong hands. Entrepreneurs and engineers have been developing technology to make safer guns since the early '90s, and by now we've got working prototypes of guns that read fingerprints, hand grips or even sensors embedded under the skin. But after 15 years of innovation, personalized guns still haven't penetrated the marketplace."

Everyone take a deep breath. The manufacturers do know they aren't going to be big sellers. Some people are interested in the technology developed. Like Android with the face-recognition for unlocking your phone, it's kind of an advertising gimmick that no one actually uses. Or you could put a physical Yale lock on a phone, make it very secure, right? But it's not really that useful. No need to get angry over it, just not working right now.

Why is very simple, people don't trust them. They use technology to prevent a simple mechanical device from working, which do you think is more likely to break?

Guns are life-saving devices when used by the police or military. Murphy's Law says it all, and if their life-saving device won't function for whatever reason they are dead. Period.

Then there is also the old remote-control problem like using a magnetic or EM/RFI field to jam the gun's mechanism and render it useless remotely, but I'm sure they already addressed this, right? Right?

Bottom line is no one trusts the technology, it's too new, unproven, and an introduction of multiple points of failure in an otherwise tested and time-proven technology.

Those look an awful lot like a bunch of links to local news station stories to me. The point of that subreddit is to bring those local news stories in one place because defensive gun use never makes national media.

But there was ONE link to freep.com, is that the only one you looked at then decided you had done enough research?

I carry a sidearm with me pretty much everywhere I go (as allowed by state law, anyway). I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.

I've never had to use it, never even had to draw it, and $DEITY willing, I never will.

It's presence on my hip has acted as a deterrent to what would have very likely resulted in at least a 911 call, if not a trip to the emergency room or the morgue on two occasions. Downtown Atlanta is not a friendly place at 3am.

A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.

I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago. However even if you did I have to ask, WHY? Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in. Your sidearm at best is NO help at all and at worst could cause a huge problem. I don't have any problem at all with people transporting their unloaded firearms though airports but if you brought a loaded firearm into an airport in the current security environment we should have heard your arrest report on the evening news. I say this even if what you did was perfectly legal. Actions like that are what gives thugs like the TSA the excuse they need to behave badly.

A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested.

Really? India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK. The Soviet Union collapsed and it wasn't because of personal firearms. Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really. The notion that your personal firearms are what preserves your liberty is a cute little sound bite that doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny. I have no illusions whatsoever that my own guns (yes I have some) are what is keeping our government at bay. What keeps them at bay is our collective behavior and our willingness to speak up courageously in the face of power. The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever. As the saying goes, "vox populi, vox Dei".

Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up.

I think you are mistaken on what constitutes popular belief. I very much agree that most firearms owners are quite responsible and most Americans understand this. That's never really been the issue. The problem is how do you identify the people who are crazy? How do you identify the irresponsible ones? How do you identify the criminals? It only takes a small number of people with guns to cause a big problem.

In all likelihood you are not the one I'm really worried about. (Although if you actually brought a loaded gun to the airport maybe you are...) I'm a supporter of gun rights but the the gun lobby (aka the NRA) has really gotten out of hand. There ARE crazy people out there looking to shoot up schools and movie theaters and public gatherings. They exist but as a society we seem unwilling to have an adult conversation about what to do about them. I'm not for a moment proposing that we take away everyone's guns but I don't think it is unreasonable to register firearms, *require* safety and competency training, and to conduct background checks. I don't think it is unreasonable to require precautions when handing someone a weapon whose primary purpose is to kill.

India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK.

The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever.

So a well-armed populace won't be any help overwhelming the government? The situation in India was with a nation rejecting an overseas power. The UK was a weary empire, and passive resistance was the appropriate response to them. Passive resistance is not going to work in the USA, against the Federal government.

I live in Arizona and spend a lot of time in Louisiana. I carry my pistol almost always, sometimes concealed and sometimes openly. I often go into Phoenix SkyHarbor Airport openly carrying my pistol and have asked police officers for directions while doing so - no one batted an eye. I've done this recently and I've done it often. It is not illegal to carry a loaded firearm in the non-secure areas of airports in many states.

As to your question, "WHY?" I almost always carry and I'm not going to disarm because I'm going into an airport to greet someone arriving. The more natural question to me is, "Why not?" If I go every where else like this and it's legal why would I treat the airport any differently. I don't understand your conclusion that a "sidearm at best is NO help at all and at worst could cause a huge problem." I'd prefer to rely on my close to 300 hours of defensive pistol training over the P.O.S.T. standards of 24 hours for many police departments.

Regarding the adult conversation about what to do about the crazy people, I agree - why aren't we talking about the "crazy people" problem?

The one thing folks can never be free of is human nature, whether their own or that of another.

Civility is only accomplished by the mutual agreement of all participants. Not everyone is willing to participate.

I agree with you in that it would be ideal to not have a need at all, but there hasn't been a society in the history of the world that has been free from a criminal or oppressive element.

However, I have to live in the real world where there are people who are more than willing to do me and mine harm if presented with the opportunity. I choose to eliminate the possibility of becoming a victim as much as I possibly can.

We may be the land of the free...but that doesn't mean there arent bad people here out to take advantage of the unwary. he mentioned atlanta; he's right. It's not a nice place in the wee hours. Hell, there's places you just don't go even in broad daylight, especially if you're the wrong color.

A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Isn't this viewpoint as sad testament as to the state of the land of the free?

In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.

I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case.

From a straight humanist POV, yes it's a sad commentary.

OTOH, civilization only works when everyone follows the same rules. Hence the problem of criminals who, by definition, refuse the social contract of civilization.

And yes, not having the need to carry is INFINITELY better than carrying "just in case". HOWEVER, we live in the real world. Where a small subset of the population make the first an unrealistic option.

In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.

I always find it to be a peculiar blend of amusing and depressingly facepalm-worthy when people talk about "civilization" to mean "sticking our heads in the sand and pretending human nature is the opposite of what it is."

As someone else mentioned exact figures are hard to come by. Studies vary. What is clear is it guns are drawn but not fired in self defense daily.It us also clear from studies in Texas after they introduced concealed carry and advertised the fact the civilians maybe armed, criminals reported they reduced criminal activity. Those studies suggest that letting criminals know "citizens may be armed" was almost as important as the licensing law itself - fear of armed "victims" matters as much as actual armed c

You've got it right in one. The biggest issue is one of trust. I don't trust the gun to not screw up when I need it the most.

I don't trust the technology to work when the gun needs to be rekeyed to a new owner upon resale (assuming that's even possible. Wouldn't surprise me if the intial models are imprint once and that's it). Or when I want to rent a gun and test fire it before I purchase.

I don't trust the technology to not have some kind of back door making the firearm able to be disabled, even when I'm the keyed owner and I pull the trigger.

As for safety... give me a break. My first firearms instructor put it best 'Your finger is the safety'. If I put my finger on the trigger, it means the discharge of my weapon is imminent unless circumstances change *really* quick.

About the only way this will work is for manufacturers to offer it as a cheaper alternative (aka, the Android business model) in order to spur adoption, and then increase cost as it became more mainstream.

The vast majority of firearms deaths are caused by people pulling the trigger on purpose, and a smart gun does nothing to prevent that decision.

They use technology to prevent a simple mechanical device from working....

They use technology to enable a device to work under certain circumstances. This wording is more accurate and helps to make the issue more clear. It's more evident that if the technology should fail, it won't enable the device to work when needed. This could be anything from a misread fingerprint to a dead battery.

Depends on your perspective, as you are facing someone who does not care about the law or YOUR life.
I would rather keep on living at the expense of some scumbag assaulting me.

This is the scumbag assaulting you with his 'life-saving device', yes?
I don't have a problem with legitimate self-defence, but as a pedant I can't accept that a lethal weapon is a 'life-saving device' either. A pacemaker is a life-saving device, as is an aircraft ejector seat or an air-bag in a car.
But claiming that a device designed to injure, maim or kill is a 'life-saving device' is pushing a point too far for me.

No, that's 3 lives saved (yours, the intended victims, and the assailant you just shot). Killing the dude who was just trying to murder someone saves 2 lives, and saves the taxpayers from having to feed and house the murder for the rest of his life.

Attempting to shoot someone in the foot is stupid and dangerous. Extremities are very small and difficult to hit and shooting at possibly hard ground can cause a ricochet which would put others in danger.
If you are shooting at a person, you shoot for center of mass. If the situation doesn't require lethal force, you shouldn't bring a weapon into the situation.

Shooting someone doesn't always mean you kill. You could shoot them in the foot for example. If it stops that person knifing an innocent in the heart, then that's a life saved.

If you draw a gun on someone you had best be prepared to kill them. You might wound them as per your example but that should not be your expectation. If you draw a lethal weapon on someone, your expectation should be that you are going to kill them and you should be prepared to possibly go to jail for your actions. You are NOT going to shoot the gun out of the guys hand. The real world isn't like a 1950s western. There is nothing wrong with drawing a weapon in self defense but be realistic about the consequences and likely outcomes of doing so.

As a sportsman, a gun owner, a CCW license holder, and an avid shooter, I guess I will weigh in here.

For one thing, if I ever have to use a gun quickly, it's in a circumstance where (God forbid) my life or the life of someone else is at risk. There is no room for error in that situation. How do I know this system will work? Sure, it probably works, but why take the risk when other weapons don't have that point of failure?

Another thing is that a lot of these systems rely on the user wearing something for the weapon to be useable, which creates a second point of failure. The user has to be wearing it, and the system has to work.

The point is fair that the overwhelming majority of weapons used street crime are stolen, not purchased lawfully. Systems that disabled a gun after it was stolen might have some value there. But to me, mine are kept in a safe that is secured to the floor in my house - they aren't getting stolen, so that doesn't concern me.

I also forgot to add, the old canard about the gun being taken away from you in an encounter with a criminal and being used against you is so astronomically rare that statistics have never been been able to be documented about it. That is not a concern.

Perhaps the information is not available for the entire US population but it the FBI does very accurately track the information for officers. It turns out about 1 in 10 get thier gun stolen in the incident in which they are killed. About 1 in 20 are killed with thier own weapon.

Police officers are constantly in environments where their pistol could be taken by a criminal. Why are the proponents of this technology not requiring cops to use it? And why are cops refusing to even consider these kinds of mechanisms?

How does one provide a citation for the claim that statistics about something don't exist? Your "citation needed" is asking the OP to prove a negative. The OP just stated that there is not documentation of statistics on how often a gun is taken from a gun owner and used against them and you asked them to provide documentation that documentation does not exist.

But to me, mine are kept in a safe that is secured to the floor in my house

Wait a second. You oppose guns that require the user to be wearing something, because you might not have it on at the time when you have to use a gun to protect yourself in a rush. But at the same time, you store your guns in a safe, which presumably takes the same (if not more) time to open as putting on the device that enables a smart gun.

If you properly maintain your guns to keep them out of reach of unintended users, then you are not going to be able to use them instantly in a crisis situation. That is how it has always been. Smart guns don't change anything.

He probably doesn't take the gun-safe with him while he's concealed carrying.

What I'm guessing he means is: say there is a transponder wristband you have to have on you while shooting your smart-gun. What if the wristband comes loose? It could, and that is another point of failure.

Realistically the signature grip makes little sense really. Firearms are inherantly mechanical things and they are much simpler to work on than internal combustion engines. Getting past an immobilizer in a car's ECU can be a big challenge because you need the ECU for the fuel injection to work. I can't even think of a way to make "smart-gun" difficult to defeat. Most people who don't own firearms don't realize that an essential part of firearm operation includes field stripping (tearing the gun down) to clean it after a day at the range. after a strip it should not take long to modify the smart-gun to operate for anyone, and you'll also have a more reliable weapon than before. This means the only benefits of the techology are those cases where your gun would be used against you.

I'll place my trust in a complex machine, but when that machine needs a battery to operate is when I start to doubt it. It's like when you cross your fingers to start a car that hasn't been run in a while.

Suppose you mandated that all guns must be smartguns that required that you wear an RFID bracelet or ring or they don't work.

Two things will happen:

* Criminals will disable the mechanism in their guns* Criminals will carry an RFID jammer, thus making them immune to any short-range use of a lawful gun

The use case you state - being able to use the gun instantly in a crisis - can only ever be compromised by additional locking mechanisms. The RFID bracelet idea is probably one of the more reliable methods ; bi

Asking why someone wouldn't want to buy a gun based on unreliable, unproven technology is like asking someone on a boat if they would rather have a cutting-edge life vest that hasn't been tested and may or may not work in the water or a proven, simple vest that been in use for decades.

If you need a gun, you want one that you KNOW is going to work when you need it. And if you don't need a gun--well you're not going to be buying ANY kind of gun. So there is simply no market for a smart gun.

The only way these things will ever sell is if some well-meaning legislature steps in and makes non-smart guns illegal. And that legislation will be overturned the first time some cop gets shot because his "smart" gun misread his fingerprint.

If the criminal element don't broadcast their intent then situational awareness is almost useless. Yes, you could make a point of never traveling away from the crowd, or of crossing the almost-empty street to avoid passing close to that perfectly respectable looking businessman (after all a decent suit only costs a few bucks at a second-hand store, and camouflage is a not-uncommon predator tactic). But that's living a life of fear and allowing the predators among us to control our actions.

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would be intimidated by the abundant presence of guns, while in the absence of belligerent people. The presence of belligerent people on the other hand, may intimidate me without the presence of guns. It's clear to me that guns are not what make a place dangerous.

A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.

This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.

I believe he's asking you to assume that a gun is an inanimate object incapable of independent action and that it is the person wielding it that ultimately makes it dangerous or rather uses it in a dangerous manner.

Can it be used more effectively than the other items listed? Sure. Does that negate the point? It does not. You want to imbue it with special powers beyond those of the person holding it as it seems what you really want to do is blame the thing and ignore the user.

A baseball bat in the hands of a mad man is most certainly a deadly weapon and without adequate resistance can easily kill a goodly number of people in a relatively short period of time. Longer than a gun perhaps but that really depends on the targets and environment.

A sword would be even more effective and again absent adequate resistance would be extremely deadly even in the hands of the untrained mad man.

While you're mentioning the evil uses of the canceling properties it seems highly disingenuous not to mention the practically infinitely more common instances:The 90 pound woman defending herself against a rapist.The gay man defending against the mob intent on beating him senseless.The old and the infirm defending against the young and strong

A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.

This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.

Or a middle aged man who's got a grudge against black youngsters who are clearly unarmed.

Ah,yes, the George Zimmerman circus, er, trial.

MSM zombie, I take it? I presume that's why you're still maintaining that it was a racially charged assault, even though Zimmerman:- Took a black girl to his prom (and at least tried to bang her, if my prom night is any indication of the standard),- started a business with a black friend,- helped tutor a couple of black kids, and- has black siblings

He was looking for trouble, which is the only reason one would exit their vehicle when he did. He was operating contrary to what anyone who cares about responsibly carrying a firearm should do, which is to avoid confrontations as often as possible.

Would you rather face a belligerent person person carrying a gun or one carrying a knife, all else being equal?

A belligerent person with a gun is MUCH more dangerous than a belligerent person with no gun, statistically speaking. I've done the math. A gun is frequently (more than once per hour in the USA) the difference between an assault and a homicide. (The death rate for people assaulted with guns is about 9x higher than that for all aggravated assaults.)

The statistics conservatives were excited about a few months ago was that Rifles (not handguns, shotguns, or other) were responsible for fewer deaths than "blunt objects" (which includes clubs, hammers, etc). Of course this morphed into "Hammers kill more people than guns", but according to the statistics, guns make up over two thirds of all homicides [fbi.gov].

Yep, the numbers of belligerents going around with box cutters, knifes, baseball bats, and etceteras committing homicides proves that they would kill no matter what... Or wait, no it doesn't. Guess you better ask a mental defective to explain the difference to you.

Ok, get this through your thick, retarded skull.

A gun is an inanimate object. On its own it does nothing. It can do nothing.

You know what the common denominator is in EVERY murder ever committed since the beginning of time? The murderer. A person who made a choice to take the life of another person, and then took action based on that choice. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

Not guns, knives, swords, or any other inanimate tool that may have been handy at the time.

I'll save you time: while you would be correct to say that firearms are responsible for more murders than any other cause, the number of non-firearms murders is very nearly half that of firearms... roughly 8k to roughly 4k.

The point being: yes, granted, guns are used more often in murders... but it seems like those without guns are managing just fine without them too. Besides, I'm pretty sure those getting killed with fists and feet don't feel any better about it than those shot with a gun.

Now, a little thought experiment: if there were no guns, what do you think would happen? Would the TOTAL number of murders go down by roughly 8k? Or, would the number of murders not using guns GO UP? I hope you wouldn't try and say the former because if so, sir, you're retarded. Would non-firearms murders go up 8k? No, I very much doubt it... but the number WOULD go up.

And why is that? Simple: violent people are violent people. Yes, guns might make it easier for them to kill... but a good percentage of them are going to murder WITHOUT a gun just the same... and hey, to use the anti-gun argument against them: isn't ONE murder with a boxcutter too much? Better ban them! If we can save just ONE LIFE by banning baseball bats, shouldn't we?

I'm not saying that if we removed guns from the equation that we wouldn't save a few lives. I think we would. There's no doubt some murders that wouldn't occur at all if there were no guns. The problem is that guns UNDENIABLY save lives, nearly every day. Are those lives saved somehow less important than those saved if there were no guns? I'm not even claiming the number of lives saved by guns is greater than those taken by murder with guns (although I believe that's the case, but I don't have a reference so I won't claim it)... I'm just saying if it's all about saving lives (hint: IT'S NOT) then a life saved with a gun is just as valuable as one taken with a gun.

People who want to kill will, by and large, find a way. That's the bottom line and that's the fundamental problem in our society, the fact that people WANT to kill (putting self-defense aside of course). The fact that guns might make it easier is tangential to the root cause and while banning guns might save a few lives, the impact won't be nearly as large as you want to think it might be and we'll be talking about banning the NEXT inanimate object quickly. Stop trying to attack something that's a proximal cause AT BEST and get to the root of the problem. That's the way we might actually make a difference in this country. We don't have a "gun violence" problem, we have a VIOLENCE problem. Any time you see "gun violence", that just shows there's an agenda at play and that person actually cares very little for saving lives and is more interesting in exerting and extending control (Oh, did our president say that? Hmm, point proven!)

Your plan does not remove the belligerent person. But does make sure the victim is unable to defend themselves. However since most machine shops on the planet can create a firearm from plane stock steel. I really don't see how your plan will ever work. Your just creating a black market for firearms.
If you want to solve the problem you have to treat the cause no the symptom. Gun violence is a sub category of violence. It is a symptom.

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would be intimidated by any item, while in the absence of belligerent people. The presence of belligerent people on the other hand, may intimidate me without the presence of that item. It's clear to me that items are not what make the world dangerous.

Nukes have never been raised from their silos in self defense. Guns are drawn in self defense daily. One of the safest places in the world is a gun range, because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed.

* bonus fact - 80% of the time they are presented in self defense, they are not fired.

My point was, that guy was obviously mentally unhinged, and what happened at that range could have (would have?) happened anywhere. Obviously, a rational person would consider that a range is more likely than elsewhere to have a high concentration of people prepared, able, and willing to defend themselves and others.

Sometimes people do because they're angry, stupid and/or crazy. The problem when everyone is waving a gun around, how do you know which one to shoot?

There.. fixed that for you. You can change it back to often when more than a fourth of gun owners have done so.

Who do you know who to shoot?? Probably the guy that is doing the shooting and killing would be my guess. During the Tucson shooting, several people in the crowd had guns, but didn't shoot because they couldn't identify the shooter (this is Arizona, many people carry guns. I've even carried a gun on my hip into Chase bank without any incident.) The shooter was disarmed later by unarmed people, and a guy who had a gun mistakenly thought the person who took the gun was the shooter. However, he didn't shoot because the person with the gun WASN'T SHOOTING AT ANYONE.

Just because a few people are ignorant (mostly people who don't shoot guns) in how guns work doesn't mean everyone is.

Instead of a nice 15 second clip of someone defeating a trigger lock (you could have found hundreds of them - Hell, your link had three linked from it), you posted 40 minutes of anti-gun FUD propagandist bullshit? Classy.

And as for locks - some trigger locks count as a joke. That amounts to a straw-man, however; some balcony rails count as a joke, but we don't scream bloody murder that we need to ban balconies - We buy functional rather than purely decorative rails instead.

You want an effective cheap gun lock? If you can Fire this [info4guns.com] with the lock in place, I'll buy you a beer (or a wine spritzer with some foofoo garnish, if you prefer). Five seconds on and off, and you can't even seat the magazine, much less rack it.

The better alternative is to educate children on the fact that guns are dangerous.

One of my friends tells the story of how her dad educated her on the dangers of guns.

When she was a little girl, one day he came and got her and her favorite stuffed animal, a big floppy bear.

He nailed the bear to a tree.

And then he shot it at relatively close range with a 12 gauge on full choke. The bear pretty much exploded.

Cruel? Undeniably so (her dad is kind of an asshole). Effective? Damn straight.

While I certainly wouldn't advocate for doing possibly psychological damage to your children by blowing up their favorite toys, I think something along the lines of a pumpkin or watermelon substitute would get the point across just as well.

I'm not a fan of guns myself and would never carry one for self defence, even if I was allowed to in my country, but, if a country is going to allow its citizens to carry guns, then a prerequisite is surely that they practice with their weapons at the range on a regular basis. If you are in the situation of actually needing your gun, you are likely to be under extreme stress and if you are not intimately familiar with every aspect of operating your weapon, it'll probably end badly.

Supreme court doesn't disagree with me. I said the constitution grants a "well regulated militia" the right to bear arms, which is factual. Then I said I feel uneasy that pro-gun people support irresponsible gun owners, which the supreme court doesn't get to tell me what I'm allowed to think or what my opinion should be.

But here you are proving the other point I made in another post:
"I'm more pro-gun control, but I consider myself middle of the road. I just think certain people shouldn't be allowed to ow

The Supreme Court rules what the Constitution means not you. A well-regulated militia has no bearing whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms and that is exactly what they said In Heller. If that isn't disagreeing with you then I do not know what is. Your statement is not factual unless you are playing word games with the 2dA. The Constitution does not grant rights, period. It enumerates what rights the Government may not infringe upon. The Supreme Court stated that no militia membership is required to

The idea of having your kids not be able to blow their brains out with your gun seems like quite a good one...

obviously you aren't able to field strip a gun..... anybody who keeps an handgun whole, with a colocated loaded clip in a house with kids has it coming. and you can reassemble an handgun very quickly if the need arises, or not at all if the threat is so sudden that it would not have helped in any case.

when my adolescent son took to softair, I took the opportunity to teach him what he really needed to know. gun safety procedures, even if it is a toy: proper handling. unless you are live, keep the finger out of the trigger guard, and the rifle pointing down. Keep the weapons on safe all the time, until the game begins, and put them on safe immediately after. NEVER, NEVER point a gun at something you are not shooting.

It's like safety belts in cars: train until you cannot behave differently from the proper way, and you'll have an head start.

Well, we're talking types who think they absolutely need a loaded gun everywhere they might be in the house, including racks by the bed and whatnot. And that their life WILL depend on it any day now, when squads of evil government black muslim communist ninjas will burst into their home to confiscate their bible and replace their medicare with an evil socialized one. And their kids who think that playing cops and robbers with daddy's gun, presumbaly in between eating paint chips and being homeschooled in ho

Unless you have a cunning solution to the fact Americans are disproportionately more likely to kill each other that you can implemented PDQ then maybe taking away the easiest way for them to do it makes sense until then? Highlighting that other countries can own guns, and be responsible at the same time, just highlights the fact the problem is 'Americans with guns' not inherently guns.

Sure there is. It's called a "target". Please use "accurate" language. This inflammatory bullshit needs to go.

There are instances where the gun didn't kill the target.

A paper target is relatively safe. It doesn't die. It doesn't scream "OH MY GOD! YOU SHOT ME!" And police aren't going to take you to county jail for a little rectal pickle-tickle if you put big holes in one on an approved range.

But every time you pull the trigger with a life on the other side you are committing a fatal action.

Again. Stop with the inflammatory bullshit. This is a false statement. The situation is nowhere near as absolute as you're making it out to be.

1: Don't need another point of failure introduced, if the reader doesn't recognize it's owner at the worst possible moment when he needs to fire a gun.2: Price hike. I expect there would be a hefty price jump with these newfangled electronic gizmos.3: Remote killswitch? The police can kill your car's engine and disable your gun with a simple command. So can hackers.

Also, are batteries included? I don't think people want to charge up their guns, unless they're shooting plasma bolts.

Why aren't police departments buying these up left and right? It's because they FAIL, quite regularly. If you're just going to be using the gun for recreation, then it's fine. But if you're using it for self defense, then their high failure rate is completely unacceptable.

There are currently much better ways to secure your gun. They're called safes.

If these things were so amazing, you'd think the police would use them. After all, they aren't in a situation like the military, where you might need to use somebody else's weapon, and it IS an occasional problem where the police have their own weapons taken and used against them. Plus it sets a good example.

So they should be all over them, right?

Ya well, not so much for the reasons the original poster detailed. Reliability is a big one. You'd have to prove the reliability of the system, in a bunch of trial

Why would anyone buy this? Its a horrible product idea. Take a reliable device and fuck with it. All I want is to know that when I point and click it goes off. Not, my hand isn't held right, the battery is dead, i'm in a fight and its covered in mud, or its just dusty and it malfunctions. Or even worse and a delay, which could cause you to be off target or allow someone else to enter the sight picture. It is a self defeating idea. If you are worried about child protection, buy a safe, teach your kid gun safety. Carry it with you. I could go on for ever.

People won't because they'll stick to the simplified, knee-jerk, kind of logic that you do there.

If a smart gun worked 99.5% of the time when you held it and never worked if you didn't then you are trading a 1/200 chance of the gun not firing when you want it for the complete removal of it being used against you or by someone else who you didn't want to. Given that the standards smart gun manufacturers work to are actually higher than that the risk of a properly maintained smart gun failing is negligible.

The statistics are clear: gun ownership causes more deaths among the family that owns it (child deaths, gun used by attacker etc) than it prevents by protection. Unless someone is considerably more responsible, trained and competent than the average owner having a gun in your health increases risk. A smart gun could actually change that calculation, though frankly given the number of intentional family killings by owners I doubt it would make gun owning households safer on average.

Gun makers have another problem. Guns rarely fail. I have a Mosin–Nagant from 1890's. It still works perfectly today. They are already worried about gun sales. Not because of legislation but because most gun buyers are already gun owners. They worry that eventually the market will shrink as no new buyers get into the gun ownership game.

For me, I need to know those electronics will last and work (and parts made for) the next 200 years. I want my kids to inherit my guns. Currently every firearm I own wi

They are a stupid fucking idea that are the answer to a question nobody asked. Well nobody other than those who ultimately wish to take all guns from people not employed by the government.

For those who think I'm wrong and that these should be mandatory, why don't you go lobby the government (at any level from local to federal) and have some of these technologies mandated for LEO fire arms use. Report back with your results.

For those who think I'm wrong and that these should be mandatory, why don't you go lobby the government (at any level from local to federal) and have some of these technologies mandated for LEO fire arms use. Report back with your results.

A remote kill switch on firearms used by rogue law enforcement or rogue military types would be interesting:

For those who aren't in the gun culture it may come as a surprise that gun owners tend to be a somewhat conservative lot when it comes to new technologies. They prefer things that are reliable and proven to gimmicks, especially for their go-to guns, because at the end of the day they want to be absolutely sure that their guns will fire reliably and immediately whenever the safety is off and they pull the trigger. Anything that might possibly interfere with that, like smart guns or RFID bracelets and rings or crap like that, is most unwelcome indeed. Oh sure, you'll find the occasional gadget fetishist at the gun shows, but they're the exception rather than the rule in my experience.

Of course, what we actually need is not a gun that responds only to its original owner, but on that can determine whether said owner is mentally sound enough to own said gun or not. In fact, what we need is for there to be a system in place that does exactly that. Changing the way the tool works is irrelevant. If someone is unhinged enough, they'll go and pick up another gun for $20 behind a dumpster somewhere.

a gun is a large responsibility. smart guns are an attempt to remove that responsibility. if you are irresponsible then you should not have a gun. if you dont know if you are responsible enough to own a gun then you are not.

before someone tries to compare it to owning a car, i would like to point out that a gun is specifically for killing. it has no other function, it's literally a killing machine.

i have yet to hear an argument for making crossbows safer yet it serves the same purpose as a gun. if it is somehow intrinsically safer then why aren't people advocating crossbows over guns?

I know people will try to make this an issue about gun regulation, but ultimately this just boils downs to market economics.

People who are in favour of gun regulation, and who would be for this type of device, by and large simply don't buy guns.

People who do buy guns - sportsmen, hunters, and other gun enthusiasts - tend to be against greater regulation, especially if it will additional costs in the purchase of their firearm.

The type of person who would buy these "smart guns" - a gun enthusiast who's willing to pay more to have more control on their firearms - is going to be very small at best. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that these guns weren't going to sell...

Cops are trained to handle their weapon properly, including responsible use (hopefully) and storage of that weapon. A cop that loses their gun, or lets their gun fall into the wrong hands does not last very long as a cop. If there was a huge issue where cops were losing or allowing their gust to be used by the wrong people, this speaks to a need to revamp the entire law enforcement industry, NOT adopt a safe weapon.

There is ABSOLUTELY no market for this "safe gun" for law enforcement. Any technology that might cause a gun to fail in a situation that requires split second decision making is not going to be a product tolerated by law enforcement.

Anyone saying that law enforcement is already adopting this technology OR that the market for this technology is law agencies are lying and/or woefully out of touch with reality.

That is a good point. People that cares about their firearms not getting used by their kids or others is a small fraction of the market that can be interested in the SmartGuns. However, for those people there are many other options available: Not owning a gun, or leaving it at the fire range. Proper safety - like disabling the gun, or having a safe. Strict gun education in the family. All of those compete with the Smart Guns.

Compared to those solutions, Smart Guns do not really bring much value. Smart Gu